I do not feel ‘attacked’. Athiests don’t threaten me at all. I feel sorry for them.
You’re losing me when you mention seperation of Church and state. Uh, uh, uh. To protect the Church from government interference is freedom of religion, not seperation. Not to keep religion out of the public square.
But look, atheist guy, I don’t recall ever saying that athiests couldn’t have websites. Let them website it up. I merely pointed out that the site is with a questionable host and the owners wish to remain anonymous. Although I don’t see the logic in making a study of disbelief. If I believe something does not exist, why do I want to waste my time proving it to myself or others? If I ‘really’ didn’t believe in it’s existance I would just go on with my life and not give it another thought.
And once-upon-a-time the Greek and Roman Gods were very real to people. They may be Mythology and literature to us now, but they weren’t always. Someone believed in them. I’m saying the creator of false Gods is Satan and always has been.
The phrase is usually traced to a letter Jefferson wrote to a Baptist congregation in Connecticut (it had been used before that by others however). They were asking Jefferson to have the federal government to step in and protect their liberties from the Congregationalists, who were the majority in their community. It's a short read:
To Messrs. Nehemiah Dodge and Others, a Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association, in the State of Connecticut Gentleman,
The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.
T.W. Jefferson
January 1, 1802
And the vast majority of atheists don't give a hoot about Nativity scenes or menorahs in public places, they don't care if politicians use the word "God" in an oath that they don't mean anyway, and they don't care about what's printed on our money. These things don't pose a problem.
What does pose a problem is the spending of tax money to further religious purposes. We appreciate the restrictions put on the use of government funds for faith-based initiatives. Most of us support the aims of the various church programs that administer emergency aid to the poor and the victims of disasters, but we don't want our money being used to proselytize.
We also despise "blue" laws that use a particular religion's views on a legal substance to effect when people not of that religion can legally conduct commerce in that substance. If drinking a beer is bad, then ban it all the time, why just ban buying it on a Sunday?
I had to wait until noon on a Sunday in North Carolina just to buy a few sixpacks of the local microbrew before I could get on the road to head home a few months ago. Here I am, trying to help the local NC economy by buying a perfectly legal substance that I had no intention of immediately consuming, and they're putting up a speed bump on my way to leaving a few dollars in the local market. How did that help anybody?
There are numerous other examples of how government support of religion is used to marginalize people who are not believers, or not of the dominant religious tradition. Some protests against these are silly, but others really do try to give an official stamp of "outsider, unworthy of consideration" to people who choose to think for themselves on religious and philosophical questions.
I merely pointed out that the site is with a questionable host and the owners wish to remain anonymous.
I'm sorry, I missed that point. It's a valid one, and while I suppose the reason for it is to avoid retaliation, at some point, free people have to stand up and be counted, no matter what the consequences. But you can bet there are people who contributed to the Yes on Prop 8 campaign in California who today wished they were able to do so anonymously.
And once-upon-a-time the Greek and Roman Gods were very real to people. They may be Mythology and literature to us now, but they weren’t always. Someone believed in them.
And today, people believe in the various Hindu gods, the Islammist view of Allah, and Buddha. You and I would conclude they are very wrong. Someday, Westerners may well regard the Judeo-Christian god with the same view that we have towards the gods you regard as false. And that includes the anti-god figure of Satan.
There are a couple of magazines, "Skeptic", and "The Skeptical Inquirer", that are devoted to skepticism about the paranormal and pseudoscience. I'm pretty sure that their researchers and writers don't believe in ghosts, ESP, and the Loch Ness Monster...and yet they devote a lot of time showing that they don't exist.